Would you get into a fist fight while carrying?

This is a discussion on Would you get into a fist fight while carrying? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; One person's good witness is the next one's indifferently depraved. What I will or will not do will not be governed by the endorsement or ...

One person's good witness is the next one's indifferently depraved. What I will or will not do will not be governed by the endorsement or castigation rendered by anonymous internet posters. Do what you are cut out for and equipped for, no more, no less.

One person's good witness is the next one's indifferently depraved. What I will or will not do will not be governed by the endorsement or castigation rendered by anonymous internet posters. Do what you are cut out for and equipped for, no more, no less.

Fist fights are a moot point when carrying. Carrying itself leads to a higher level of thinking (or it should). Distance yourself from thinking bad thoughts when you carry even though it may be difficult at times.

At which point do you flash your concealed carry badge? Or will the sash be evident enough?

Originally Posted by Mike1956

One person's good witness is the next one's indifferently depraved. What I will or will not do will not be governed by the endorsement or castigation rendered by anonymous internet posters. Do what you are cut out for and equipped for, no more, no less.

I avoid all fights while carrying a gun. However, I understand the point of your question.

I've said this many times... The courts in general, prosecutors and LEO's specifically take a pretty dim view at people shooting unarmed opponents. Something about it not being a fair fight kind of thing.

If I am accosted by a stranger, which for all intents and purposes appears to be unarmed. I am more than likely not going to shoot him just to avoid getting punched in the face a few times.

No one wants to be in a fist fight. No one wants to get punched in the face. It hurts! But if someone accosts you who is in your general age range, size range and many other factors, you are usually not justified in using deadly force to repel an attacker who is seen by the courts (and witnesses) as being unarmed.

It would really behoove you to become intimately familiar with how the concept of disparity of force works. As civilians, we are not allowed to use deadly force to repel non-deadly attacks. An unarmed robber is usually not considered a deadly threat.

Does that mean he can't kill you with his bare hands? No!

Does that mean that an initial non-lethal threat or assault, can not turn into an incident where deadly force is suddenly justified? Of course it can.

It's always best to have a less lethal means of dealing with incidents which start out appearing to be a non-lethal attack.

You should know that not every attack, or mugging will be viewed by authorities as a lethal encounter. Otherwise, every person who ever got mugged would be dead. And not every mugging does the attacker have a deadly weapon.

What I'm saying is that you should be prepared to go hands on with a scary dude until a weapon is clearly made visible or a disparity of force is created to such an extent that your life now becomes seriously at risk of being killed or permanently crippled.

If you don't want to go hands on with an unarmed attacker, you may consider carrying something like pepper spray, electronic stun device or some other less lethal means of dealing with an unarmed assault.

You should become intimately knowledgeable with the concept of disparity of force and what it entails. It's not some loose term to throw around in court and expect using that term is going to convince a jury that you were justified in shooting an otherwise unarmed citizen.

Because I can assure you, once you kill that thug, he will cease to be a thug, and will become a model citizen that you shot down in cold blood, presented to the jury. If you did not know his criminal record before you shot him, the jury won't know about his criminal record either. Even if it turns out he was a serial rapist and baby killer out on parole. Not unless your attorney is very, very crafty at getting such things sneaked in under the prosecutors nose.

The thing is, you have to be prepared for anything when getting accosted. Things can change on a dime. What started out as something which would be considered non-lethal can quickly become a deadly threat if your attacker starts to get the best of you in a scuffle. But until that bar is reached... Until it becomes clear that there is a disparity of force, and you are now being relentlessly beat to a point you can't defend yourself, you can get gigged for being premature on the draw.

Here us what I've learned in life, especially from being an LEO pretty much my entire adult life;

Every once in a while, a man comes across another that needs to be jaw jacked for the greater good of society. I'm OK with that. I certainly do not advocate that it's a good idea to do so, and being armed certainly can create a headache for all involved, but to do or not do is a decision only you can make at the time.

Never ever assert yourself into somebody elses battles, you will never win, come out a head, or even break even.

You are more likely to get yourself in trouble than you are to help someone.

Modern society is much too litigious to be a hero. If you're LEO, you have a department and a union covering your butt. If you're just a citizen, how much are you willing to lose to be a hero?

There is also the alter ego rule in many states (including SC) that sounds great (you can act as if you are the person in imminent danger. Trouble is that the thread makes the scenarios sound so cut and dry and the alter ego rule assumes same; it is as if you were there from the very beginning and have a stake in the scenarios--ain't like that in the real world. You have no idea who, what, where, when as they pertain to a situation. You may think you are helping but you can be very wrong and in very big trouble.

In my opinion, an assault unjustly brought against you might not be avoidable, but if they brought it, I will try finish it as quickly and dirty as I can.

But by definition, a fight is a mutual combat deal brought on by two or more people unwilling to walk away, and in that case, just straight up fights should be avoided at all costs. Was that snarky comment you just made to the jerk cutting in line really worth finding out if the other person is a golden gloves boxer or not?

And in any fight, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you lose REAL BAD!

When you are laying on the ground getting kicked, well, that is a really bad time to consider that just maybe you should have not gotten yourself into the fight to begin with.

For me, unless something is life or death right this moment, I can walk away, or can I make an excellent witness, and I know how to call 911.

I avoid all fights while carrying a gun. However, I understand the point of your question.

I've said this many times... The courts in general, prosecutors and LEO's specifically take a pretty dim view at people shooting unarmed opponents. Something about it not being a fair fight kind of thing.

If I am accosted by a stranger, which for all intents and purposes appears to be unarmed. I am more than likely not going to shoot him just to avoid getting punched in the face a few times.

No one wants to be in a fist fight. No one wants to get punched in the face. It hurts! But if someone accosts you who is in your general age range, size range and many other factors, you are usually not justified in using deadly force to repel an attacker who is seen by the courts (and witnesses) as being unarmed.

It would really behoove you to become intimately familiar with how the concept of disparity of force works. As civilians, we are not allowed to use deadly force to repel non-deadly attacks. An unarmed robber is usually not considered a deadly threat.

Does that mean he can't kill you with his bare hands? No!

Does that mean that an initial non-lethal threat or assault, can not turn into an incident where deadly force is suddenly justified? Of course it can.

It's always best to have a less lethal means of dealing with incidents which start out appearing to be a non-lethal attack.

You should know that not every attack, or mugging will be viewed by authorities as a lethal encounter. Otherwise, every person who ever got mugged would be dead. And not every mugging does the attacker have a deadly weapon.

What I'm saying is that you should be prepared to go hands on with a scary dude until a weapon is clearly made visible or a disparity of force is created to such an extent that your life now becomes seriously at risk of being killed or permanently crippled.

If you don't want to go hands on with an unarmed attacker, you may consider carrying something like pepper spray, electronic stun device or some other less lethal means of dealing with an unarmed assault.

You should become intimately knowledgeable with the concept of disparity of force and what it entails. It's not some loose term to throw around in court and expect using that term is going to convince a jury that you were justified in shooting an otherwise unarmed citizen.

Because I can assure you, once you kill that thug, he will cease to be a thug, and will become a model citizen that you shot down in cold blood, presented to the jury. If you did not know his criminal record before you shot him, the jury won't know about his criminal record either. Even if it turns out he was a serial rapist and baby killer out on parole. Not unless your attorney is very, very crafty at getting such things sneaked in under the prosecutors nose.

The thing is, you have to be prepared for anything when getting accosted. Things can change on a dime. What started out as something which would be considered non-lethal can quickly become a deadly threat if your attacker starts to get the best of you in a scuffle. But until that bar is reached... Until it becomes clear that there is a disparity of force, and you are now being relentlessly beat to a point you can't defend yourself, you can get gigged for being premature on the draw.

So according to you I'm supposed to wait until I'm well on the way to getting my ass kicked "good" before I decide if I should use deadly force? Male cow droppings. Let me know how all that works out for you.

I don't know if you've been in a serious fight or not. I know I have and if I remember correctly I'd have called in a air strike if I could have.

People on here post about how nothing goes as planned during a self defense shooting. It's the same in a fist fight.

That is one of the most dangerous things you might do and it comes with totally unpredictable results.

It is to be avoided almost entirely unless you actually know the full situation. If you don't know the full situation you might
be doing some considerable harm. The lady screaming for help might be fighting with an undercover agent; just one example of many possible things you would have no way of knowing about.

Evan Marshals was a police officer and he gives several instances of a police officer getting into more than they expected when they interviened.

In one case the officers responded to a domestic violence call, and as they were arresting the guy for beating his wife she realized that they were going to take her hubby away so she grabbed a knife and stabbed oen of the cops.

In another example Evan shot a rapist as he was about the commit the rape. The victum then turned around and sued Evan and the department for endangering her!

There was a case here years ago where the was a 911 call about a disturbance in a neighborhood. Two officers responded. It turns out the call was placed by two brothers that had decided they wanted to kill a couple of cops. They suceeded, ambushing and gunning down both officers with hunting rifles as they approached the house.

If your going to intervene be aware that things cab change in a split second, and that no good deed goes unpunished.

So according to you I'm supposed to wait until I'm well on the way to getting my ass kicked "good" before I decide if I should use deadly force? Male cow droppings. Let me know how all that works out for you.

I don't know if you've been in a serious fight or not. I know I have and if I remember correctly I'd have called in a air strike if I could have.

People on here post about how nothing goes as planned during a self defense shooting. It's the same in a fist fight.

I haven't been involved in fisticuffs since middle school. Please enlighten us as to how you came to be involved in a "serious fight". If a fight is serious (imminent death or grave bodily harm), I get to use my gun. If it doesn't rise to that standard, how is it "serious"?